# Brown v. Conroy

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · January 25, 2001 · 2 F. App'x 355

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1003441

## Case

- **Full name:** Don Alexander BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patrick CONROY; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 25, 2001
- **Citations:** 2 F. App'x 355
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Widener, Michael, Hamilton
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1003441

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7531

DON ALEXANDER BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PATRICK CONROY; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE
OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-00-2321-AW)

Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 25, 2001

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Don Alexander Brown, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Don Alexander Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) and denying his motion for recon-

sideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a cer-

tificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Brown v. Conroy, No. CA-00-2321-AW (D. Md.

filed and entered Sept. 26, 2000; and filed Oct. 10, 2000; entered

Oct. 11, 2000). We deny Brown’s motion for oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-

terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1003441. Public record. Not legal advice.